[Tom4784]

Deleted Post

[bots]

the press keep being blamed for people not voting for labour it's such a joke. People don't vote for labour because they are simply unelectable as this latest conference has shown

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

the press keep being blamed for people not voting for labour it's such a joke. People don't vote for labour because they are simply unelectable as this latest conference has shown

Again, the whole conference has now been rendered obselete just because one of the speakers didn't act like the usual stuffed shirts we see in politics.

What did other speakers say? What new positions were made clear? We don't know, because the press has something to run with.

ETA
That's not a problem with the party itself, it's a problem with the way the press operates. Now I am all for freedom of the press, but we all know how they operate, and Rayner should have known what would happen.

As far as the press is concerned, all that happened over the conference is:
Starmer won't defend women's rights, or women within his party
Rayner said a naughty word

[bots]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Again, the whole conference has now been rendered obselete just because one of the speakers didn't act like the usual stuffed shirts we see in politics.

What did other speakers say? What new positions were made clear? We don't know, because the press has something to run with.

ETA
That's not a problem with the party itself, it's a problem with the way the press operates. Now I am all for freedom of the press, but we all know how they operate, and Rayner should have known what would happen.

As far as the press is concerned, all that happened over the conference is:
Starmer won't defend women's rights, or women within his party
Rayner said a naughty word

The conference is streamed live, people can listen to every word uttered. No press needed.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

The conference is streamed live, people can listen to every word uttered. No press needed.

People can ... But most won't. Joanna and Michael's only insight will be what the press tells them. While they're miles better than the Tories, Labour aren't currently "my" party so I'm not going to watch it all either. I might watch a couple of speeches from people I like later on, but I'm not anxious to do so.

My meandering point is, I'm politically homeless right now, and a good conference is what may keep me from spoiling another ballot.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Again, the whole conference has now been rendered obselete just because one of the speakers didn't act like the usual stuffed shirts we see in politics.

What did other speakers say? What new positions were made clear? We don't know, because the press has something to run with.

ETA
That's not a problem with the party itself, it's a problem with the way the press operates. Now I am all for freedom of the press, but we all know how they operate, and Rayner should have known what would happen.

As far as the press is concerned, all that happened over the conference is:
Starmer won't defend women's rights, or women within his party
Rayner said a naughty word

It wasn't even said on the conference platform.
It was said at a fringe meeting.

I say again however.
Scum means dirt or froth on top of something.

So for me it's quite appropriate to describe Johnson and most of his Cabinet.

Cons and closet Cons, will ignore and even defend Johnson's many outbursts and careless offensive wording, no matter what.

There's still a wife and Mother held in Iran, under house arrest in part because of Johnson's careless comments while actually Foreign Secretary, as to why he said she was in Iran.

Cons will let that pass and jump on someone in effect calling that same person and his top henchmen and women, dirt at the top, re scum.

Perfectly appropriate in my view.
It's not what I'd like to call him for sure, I really wouldn't dare say in public what I call the deceitful odious creep.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'll never vote for Labour again while that blue wolf in red clothing continues to be it's leader. **** him off, stop trying to appeal to the cultists who will lick Boris' ass clean no matter what, and be an actual opposition party and not the pathetic waste of space that Labour has become under Starmer.

But that's all there is?

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by arista

But that's all there is?

I can go with Dezzy in that I don't like Starmer as leader.
Then again as a member of the party, I haven't liked any Labour leader, or really other parties leaders there's been in the last 2 decades.

However there is one simple fact in politics of the UK, with this now even more divisive and ridiculous archaic electoral system.

That simple fact is, IF people who vote, don't REALLY want a Con government, then the ONLY way to ensure the Cons don't win is to vote Labour.

Under this awful first past the post system, the Cons could have 37% , Labour around 24% the Lib Dems 24% , the others 15%.
The Cons would govern with an overall majority on those figures.
Yet, 63% will have voted against the Cons.

That is atrocious in a so called democracy.
PR is desperately needed.
There's ONLY one party which would NEVER want PR and that's the Cons.

There are continuing growing numbers in Labour now who would support PR.

In that scenario above take half the Lib Dems votes and add them to Labours.
Then the Cons couldn't govern with an overall majority.
In fact they would more likely be out, with a then Labour led government of a coalition or with the support of say the SNP.

It's a simple and maybe for many a sad fact.
HOWEVER if voters don't want a Con government, but they then go out and vote for other parties other than Labour, then another CON government is all they'll get.
Under this now in no way fit for purpose electoral system.

As a Labour member, I accept under PR Labour would not be an overall majority government again.
I consider that a price worth paying to FORCE parties to work more closely together, and moreso to ensure we never get the rotten extreme government we've got now.
So the Cons too could never either be an overall majority government again.
So their extremes would be well curbed.

I believe, the day Labour has a leader, it could yet be this leader.
Who will say, if elected PR will be the format for the next election after that.
That would gather massive support from voters and indeed all other opposition parties too.
Delivering at last true representative democracy to the UK too.

In addition too, I'd like scrapped, the oath new MPs have to take to take their seat in Westminster.
The oath of allegiance to the Queen and her heirs.
Bonkers and hypocritical.

The one place the Queen cannot freely go to is the House of Commons.
She's BARRED from it!!!
Yet Sinn Fein supported by voters in elections for Westminster, cannot come and vote at Westminster until they take that oath.

We call that democracy that we deny the voters in a free election their voice via their chosen party and candidates for Westminster.
Absolutely bonkers.

[arista]

GMBHD itv Live Debate
said there is No Northern Mayors like Andy Burnham
at this conference, some kind of a threat?

[arista]

Thats a First
Rachel Reeves who is giving a speech later today
has not gone on SkyNewsHD Westminster first

She has gone on BBC1 AM
and now GMBHD itv

[Crimson Dynamo]

You cannot seriously defend a senior politician calling another scum

It's just not British and thankfully has been roundly condemned

Oliver Dowden, the Conservative Party chairman, said: “At a time when the country is
trying to pull together to recover from Covid, the last thing we need is the deputy leader
of the Labour Party calling people 'scum' and yelling insults.”


He added: “We need to make politics better, not drag it into the gutter. Let's see if we
get an apology.”

[arista]

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by arista

Like being at school, I want the people who don’t normally put their hands up to do so

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by arista

He can feck right off.

We're meant to be against reducing people to their demographic traits and acting like they define them.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

He can feck right off.

We're meant to be against reducing people to their demographic traits and acting like they define them.

To be fair he's not saying "we don't want to heard from white men" but when you're operating in a limited time frame and you can't literally hear everyone's point of view, it's important to make sure you have a broad spectrum of perspectives, and a 5th middle class white bloke's POV is of limited utility when you already have the other 4. For example in my organisation (because full disclosure - it's full of middle class white folks) when I'm adding a perspective to a discussion I like to come at it from the angle of a parent/full time carer of a child with additional needs, because that's a perspective I can offer that others can't, rather than just another generic "working age male" perspective. The team already has that.

So yeah in short, I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking diverse perspectives. Demographic traits don't "define people" in their entirety but it would be foolish to try to claim that people have full understandings of other people's issues... to use my example again; a layperson's thoughts on the things that might affect the parent of a disabled child mean precisely jack **** to be completely blunt about it. And likewise it would be ludicrous for me to suggest that I can offer a full perspective on issues affecting an ethnic minority or a female.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

To be fair he's not saying "we don't want to heard from white men" but when you're operating in a limited time frame and you can't literally hear everyone's point of view, it's important to make sure you have a broad spectrum of perspectives, and a 5th middle class white bloke's POV is of limited utility when you already have the other 4. For example in my organisation (because full disclosure - it's full of middle class white folks) when I'm adding a perspective to a discussion I like to come at it from the angle of a parent/full time carer of a child with additional needs, because that's a perspective I can offer that others can't, rather than just another generic "working age male" perspective. The team already has that.

So yeah in short, I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking diverse perspectives. Demographic traits don't "define people" in their entirety but it would be foolish to try to claim that people have full understandings of other people's issues... to use my example again; a layperson's thoughts on the things that might affect the parent of a disabled child mean precisely jack **** to be completely blunt about it. And likewise it would be ludicrous for me to suggest that I can offer a full perspective on issues affecting an ethnic minority or a female.

He is the Chairperson he can choose whose question he wants to take

He is more or less forcing people to put their hands up even though they may not want to

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

To be fair he's not saying "we don't want to heard from white men" but when you're operating in a limited time frame and you can't literally hear everyone's point of view, it's important to make sure you have a broad spectrum of perspectives, and a 5th middle class white bloke's POV is of limited utility when you already have the other 4. For example in my organisation (because full disclosure - it's full of middle class white folks) when I'm adding a perspective to a discussion I like to come at it from the angle of a parent/full time carer of a child with additional needs, because that's a perspective I can offer that others can't, rather than just another generic "working age male" perspective. The team already has that.

So yeah in short, I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking diverse perspectives. Demographic traits don't "define people" in their entirety but it would be foolish to try to claim that people have full understandings of other people's issues... to use my example again; a layperson's thoughts on the things that might affect the parent of a disabled child mean precisely jack **** to be completely blunt about it. And likewise it would be ludicrous for me to suggest that I can offer a full perspective on issues affecting an ethnic minority or a female.

I see your point but again it's about optics. He's handing the opportunity for people to clip it and share it round, making the party look bad.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I see your point but again it's about optics. He's handing the opportunity for people to clip it and share it round, making the party look bad.

If the aim is to win back the red wall, that won’t help

They are literally the gift that keeps on giving to the Tory’s currently

[arista]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

He can feck right off.

We're meant to be against reducing people to their demographic traits and acting like they define them.

Yes a silly comment
Been sent around the World
now.

Labour Party Conference that is never ending in edits

[Tom4784]

Deleted Post

[arista]

Rachel Reeves
is now Live
both news channels.



Shadow Chancellor and her dreams

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by arista

Rachel Reeves
is now Live
both news channels.



Shadow Chancellor and her dreams

She can be effective can Rachel.
I've some respect for her myself.
Maybe her dreams could be better than the nightmares from Johnson.

[arista]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

She can be effective can Rachel.
I've some respect for her myself.
Maybe her dreams could be better than the nightmares from Johnson.

Yes Popular,
is her saying get rid of Business Rates


Rachel Reeves Today

[arista]

[Crimson Dynamo]

They alose need to stop referring to people as comrades

outdated and fake